Andre Boisclair to lead the country of Quebec

[I miss Reagan]

You are not reasonable, IMR. Not at all!

I love it! (see my quote below) But whatever you say Eureka. Maybe if you say 'our taxes aren't high' enough times it'll come true. The difference between people like you and people like me is when you see the big house on the hill you say "no one should have a house this big". While we say "everyone should have a house this big"

Keep killing that Golden Goose Eureka.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I am from Alberta. I have never heard of this "third candidate" fellow, but have for years been espousing "positive separation" for Quebec (and maybe Alberta). Instead of the tired "get the hell out we don't want you" from the rest of Canada or the "please please please stay with us" ROC or the bitter sovereignty from inside Quebec, why not celebrate our irreconcilable differences and live side by side as neighbours. Quebec has been a huge cash drain on Canada for a long time with respect to a national biliqual policy that is completely unnecessary in the rest of the country, a net taker in terms of federal transfers (sure, so are the maritimes, but they're tiny), and a general drag on Canada's investment climate (big money hates uncertainty). As well, Quebec DOES have a distinct society with much culture worth protecting. French people are quirky I'd hate to see a massive english wave erase that endearing "je ne sais quoi" (I HAD to, sorry) that sets Quebec apart. As Canadians (and Quebeckers) we should simply accept that our attempted union has failed, and that we can still enjoy the benefits of living side by side without having to quibble over language or constitution.

Whoever thought we could actually let a powerful central government dictate to a diverse group of provinces was mental. We should all have a much more loose relationship, such as in the USA with each state.

[Guest eureka]

The difference between you and I, IMR, is that I take the facts as my guide. How many times does it have to be shown that Canada is in the lower half of OECD in taxation. How many times do you have to be shown that we are not really higher taxed than the USA.

I have said that the total tax take in Canada is about 36% of GDP against about 30% in the US. That 6% difference is in our healthcare.

Corporate taxes here in Ontario are lower than in any of the American Great Lakes or New England states.

Does the Fraser Institute feed you a different story and you still believe them.

I also posted the higher proportion of Provincial spending in Canada than in the US. Three times higher. Is that somehow twisted while passing through your neurons into evidence of "centralization."

You are worse than Bakunin.

[Guest eureka]

Jerry! How on earth can you call separation,"positive." There is not a positive element in the idea. Everyone loses.

There would be an absurd geographical construct remaining; a diminished and higher cost economic duo - worse for Quebec. And there would be a new country - Quebec - which would probably not even be allowed to join the United Nations because of its human rights violations: a mean spirited society forged in the name of racial purity: a Fascist state.

Apart from that, try reading just a little of what I have posted about the relationship of French and English in Quebec and Canada. Then, if you want to defend your half baked scheme or quibble with the historical,legal, and moral presentations I have made, I will accommodate you.

But not before you take the trouble to inform yourself. It is tiresome in the extreme to have to go through this with every new, unthinking poster who thinks the destruction of a nation is a light matter. Or, who will blithely skate over the racist laws of Quebec.

[Bakunin]

You've heard eureka guys, :angry: stop trying to think by yourself guys !

Let him tell you the fact !

Don't contest what he say, he doesn't need actually to provide sources, documentation or any kind of proof to what he say, he have THE gift !

He's gifted, he knows what is right and what his wrong... He's right and your wrong !

[August1991]

There would be an absurd geographical construct remaining; a diminished and higher cost economic duo - worse for Quebec. And there would be a new country - Quebec - which would probably not even be allowed to join the United Nations because of its human rights violations: a mean spirited society forged in the name of racial purity: a Fascist state.

Wow, you make it sound like Quebec would become North Korea. You're way, way out there, eureka.

[Guest eureka]

Try, Bakunin, to refute anything that I have written. You amuse me with your persistent belief in myths. Graham Heard the managing editor of the Montreal Star was once criticized by certain political leaders for printing what I wrote and responded that he did so because I was right.

Try thinking about it.

Not North Korea, August. It would not have been devastated by war. But it would have the same racial context as Nazi Germany did.

Did you see the latest gem of the language office? Staff in one concern ( I think it was a government office) have been ordered not only to conduct business in French but to converse amongst themselves in French only.

Is there a sicker society on God's earth!

[Riverwind]

As for rational reason there are tons, we can't face up the problem we have right now in this rigid federalism.

This is a blanket statement that is really more of an opinion than a fact. All constitutional federations have to have a certain amount of 'rigidity' otherwise they simply cannot function. In practice, the Canadian federation is very flexible when it comes to the division federal-provincial powers - For example, the Quebec government has powers over immigration and taxation that are normally not given to provincial/state governments.

First, healthcare is a mess, the cost are growing 2 times faster than the economy growth and soon the baby boomers are going to fill the hospital its clear we won't be able to do anything about it in a federation since the federal isnt paying its 50% share like it was suppose to be.

The healthcare mess is definitely not going to be solved by seperation. In fact, Quebec seperation would only make the mess worse because of at least a decade of economic growth would be wasted on the costs of restructing the political and economic arrangements. During that time any construtive discussion about how to reform the system would take back seat to arguments about citizenship and national debt. If seperatists really cared about healthcare they would work within the existing framework to reform the system and stop blaming the feds for the problems.

Second, immigration is not entering fast enough in quebec, if we want to face the demographic deficit we are going to have to increase immigration. The problem is that many immigrant don't even know that there are french people in canada, the federal government must either fully let quebeckers take care of quebec immigration or either target more immigrant from the french community.

I live in Richmond BC where 60% of the population is Chinese and speak Mandarin or Cantonese. All of the French immersion schools are filled to capacity and have waiting lists - many of the kids in these classes are children of immigrants learning their third language. I don't see where you get the idea that immigrants don't know that there are French speakers in Canada.

Furthermore, the province of Quebec is already has powers over education and immigration that allows it to encourage immigrates to learn French. Being a seperate country will not change anything - look at the challenges that the Americans are having getting hispanic immigrants to speak English.

Third, we want to be able to have our voice in the international community actually we had to pass trough france to make sure the onesco get to regularize cultural goods and not the omc. We also want to be able to talk about free trade agreement.

Why? Quebequers vote for federal politicians that represent their views on the world stage. Just because you disagree with the political views of the Quebequers who represent Quebec at the federal level does not mean Quebec is not adequately represented. The same can be said for free trade agreements. The desire you express for Quebec to be visible at the international level is nothing more than emotional/nationalist argument.

Four, there are tons of duplicate services right now between the federal  and the quebec government, we are talking of about 1-2 billions of duplicated services. A sample is the duplicated taxes report wich cost on its own half a billion.

There are clear economies of scale if tax collection is done at federal level instead of provicial level. The Quebec gov't insisted on setting up its own tax system at great expense because the Quebec gov't wants to have power for the sake of power. Other provinces are able to develop distinct tax policies without paying for the duplication there is no reason Quebec could not do the same. Similar arguments exist in almost every area of 'duplication' within Quebec. Bad decisions made by the provincial Quebec government for purely emotional reasons are not rational arguments for seperation.

Five we are tired to have to fight up to the supreme court for basic stuff has getting our own parental insurance system.

I am not familiar with this issue, however, if Quebec elected federal representatives that thad an interest in co-operating with the country there would likely be fewer battles like this.

We can also talk of the fiscal imbalance wich could be fix with an "opt out" option but the federal refuse that compromise. That "opt out" with compensation option is vital for quebeckers.

Whenever Quebec negotiates a deal to opt out of a federal program it negotiates compensation at that time. There is no need to formalize the right to opt out in the constitution.

A veto right over constitutional change is also something quebeckers, ontario, the west and the atlantic should get.

A veto, in practice, already exists. It is not in the constitution at this time because it is very difficult to put together a package of constitutional reforms that everyone will like. This is because, in today's society, it is easy to be a critic and very hard to be constructive - that is why Duceppe decided to stay in Ottawa.

A new constitution is also need, one that would be suitable enough for us to sign it..

There is no such thing as a constitution that a seperatist will sign because having an 'unsigned' constitution is a useful political tool. Quebec federalists also cannot sign the consitutution because they would be villified in the poisonous Quebec political culture for 'selling-out' Quebec no matter how reaonable the deal is. The fact that the constitution is not signed is not rational argument for seperation but rather an indication of how some Quebequers are more interested in sabotaging the current system so they can use it as an excuse for seperation.

the federal government has to stop provocking the province.

the deal with municipalities is a sample of federal lack of respect torward the province.

Respect is a two way street. The Quebec gov't, particularly seperatists, show no repsect for the federal gov't and the rest of the country yet expect to be treated with respect in return.

When it comes to spending money for municipal infrastructure, there is absolutely no reason why it is better for the money to come from the provincial government instead of the federal government. For people commuting to work in Vancouver, Victoria can seem as distant as Ottawa.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry! How on earth can you call separation,"positive." There is not a positive element in the idea. Everyone loses.

There would be an absurd geographical construct remaining; a diminished and higher cost economic duo - worse for Quebec. And there would be a new country - Quebec - which would probably not even be allowed to join the United Nations because of its human rights violations: a mean spirited society forged in the name of racial purity: a Fascist state.

Apart from that, try reading just a little of what I have posted about the relationship of French and English in Quebec and Canada. Then, if you want to defend your half baked scheme or quibble with the historical,legal, and moral presentations I have made, I will accommodate you.

But not before you take the trouble to inform yourself. It is tiresome in the extreme to have to go through this with every new, unthinking poster who thinks the destruction of a nation is a light matter. Or, who will blithely skate over the racist laws of Quebec.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I will take your word for it. I am not from Quebec. It doesn't take away the idea that we both might be better off as close friends as opposed to family members.

[Riverwind]

Actually I will take your word for it.  I am not from Quebec.  It doesn't take away the idea that we both might be better off as close friends as opposed to family members.

This analogy makes no sense, countries and governments are not the same people. Quebec seperatists and their sympathizers/enablers ouside of Quebec like to make it sound like negotiating a new deal will be as simple as shaking hands. This is an extremely niave and dangerous attitude. Think about it: we already have a political environment in this country that makes it impossible for the various parties to agree on a new constitution. Compromise would be even less likely in the emotionally charged environment after a yes vote.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually I will take your word for it.  I am not from Quebec.  It doesn't take away the idea that we both might be better off as close friends as opposed to family members.

This analogy makes no sense, countries and governments are not the same people. Quebec seperatists and their sympathizers/enablers ouside of Quebec like to make it sound like negotiating a new deal will be as simple as shaking hands. This is an extremely niave and dangerous attitude. Think about it: we already have a political environment in this country that makes it impossible for the various parties to agree on a new constitution. Compromise would be even less likely in the emotionally charged environment after a yes vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It may be so that the logistics of an actual separation would be a nightmare. My point is more theoretical. I think the idea has merit. My original post was simply in agreement that splitting the country isn't necessarily bad -- in THEORY. Yes, it would probably be a nightmare. I say we just pro-rate the debt, piece it off to quebec and pull out all public services like the military and federal offices. I am sure they'd still use our currency. Or maybe adopt the greenback.

But I would be interested to see what would happen to air canada. All those biliqual francophones might get replaced by people with nice personalities JOKE!!! c'mon guys just kidding!!!

[Guest eureka]

Nicely reasoned post, Soarrhawk. Just one thing to add to the Constitution signing part. There is no legal requirement for Quebec to have signed the Constutution. The repatriation of the Constitution is not a change. Signing was a courtesy extended by the Federal government and Quebec has built this into a 'cause celebre'. A deception of the French citizens of the province.

The idea of a veto written into the Constitution is a complete non-starter. The federal Constitution is the federal government's business. There is an obvious veto as far as changes to provincial matters are concerned. That is, that they would be unconstitutional without provincial consent.

Quebec has been obsessed with the idea that there is a convention that gives it veto power. That is nonsense and is a misapplication of the legal position with respect to Provincial jurisdictions.

[August1991]

The healthcare mess is definitely not going to be solved by seperation. In fact, Quebec seperation would only make the mess worse because of at least a decade of economic growth would be wasted on the costs of restructing the political and economic arrangements.

I'll take that comment as a starting point in a good thread with many good comments.

The health care mess, at least in Quebec, would be solved by "separation". People in Quebec do things their own way. When they have the freedom to do it their own way, they make it work or learn quickly from the mistake. The current federal structure does not allow people in Quebec to organize their health system the way they would if they were autonomous or sovereign.

All constitutional federations have to have a certain amount of 'rigidity' otherwise they simply cannot function. In practice, the Canadian federation is very flexible when it comes to the division federal-provincial powers

Good point. The BNA Act is remarkably flexible. We can accomodate much within its "rigidity".

All of the French immersion schools are filled to capacity and have waiting lists - many of the kids in these classes are children of immigrants learning their third language.

An off-topic aside. I suspect "French-immersion" in English-Canada has become synonym for "private school". Parents put their kids in immersion because they believe the teachers are younger and the bureaucracy is less sclerotic. French is not the motivator - snob appeal is.

Quebequers vote for federal politicians that represent their views on the world stage. Just because you disagree with the political views of the Quebequers who represent Quebec at the federal level does not mean Quebec is not adequately represented.

Something all people in English Canada must understand is that the federal Liberals no longer represent Quebec. People like Lucienne Robillard, Pierre Pettigrew and Stephane Dion do not speak for the Quebec I know. Given all that has happened over the past few decades and past few months, federal Liberals are now perceived as the Fraser Institute is perceived by some in English Canada: a front for a foreign influence. At most, some in French Quebec argue that Robillard and the rest have money - just as some in English Canada are impressed by the Fraser Institute's connections. (I frankly would prefer to live in a country without such perceptions.)

There are clear economies of scale if tax collection is done at federal level instead of provicial level.

One of the biggest errors in political economy is to believe that there are economies of scale in public administration. All evidence points to the contrary - smaller units are more efficient. But Hugo can make a good theoretical argument. I don't know why the Ontario government caused amalgamation. The Quebec government did it for political reasons - one island, one city.

Whenever Quebec negotiates a deal to opt out of a federal program it negotiates compensation at that time. There is no need to formalize the right to opt out in the constitution.

No need to formalize? That was one of the Meech Lake five conditions. You make it sound as if Meech passed.

There is no such thing as a constitution that a seperatist will sign because having an 'unsigned' constitution is a useful political tool.

Another huge blunder in English Canada. The people who do not want to sign a new constitution are members of the federal Liberal party. They are the ones benefitting from this extortion racket. You'll note that it is federalist French Quebecers who are the first to mention the threat of separatism and how it will "destroy Canada". Of course. They will lose the most. Cui bono.

Pequistes don't play that card. Rather they are constantly talking about how they will be able to come to an agreement with English Canada. Levesque often referred to English Canada's sense of fair play to support his argument for "association".

Respect is a two way street. The Quebec gov't, particularly seperatists, show no repsect for the federal gov't and the rest of the country yet expect to be treated with respect in return.

Some English Canadians have said they regret being unable to vote for Gilles Duceppe. In all the machinations of this Parliament, Duceppe has been decent and the BQ has acted admirably. In the candidate debates of the 2004 election, Duceppe was arguably the most eloquent and reasonable.

To be cynical, Duceppe and the BQ are perfectly aware of this. They are presenting a favourable image to ROC while at the same time watching over the machinations of the federal Liberals - with luck, there will not be the same stunts as in 1995.

In short, Duceppe and Levesque have a tremendous respect for the rest of Canada. When Levesque used the term "equal to equal", he didn't mean a small guy needed a chair to face a tall guy. He meant simply that a French Quebecer could shake hands with any Newfoundlander, Albertan or New Yorker.

----

Look, the northern part of North America is a great place (lots of rocks and trees, but a great place). The history of northern North America is a remarkably peaceful mixed bag. The English-speaking part of North America that is not "American" really must decide what it is.

[Riverwind]

The health care mess, at least in Quebec, would be solved by "separation".  People in Quebec do things their own way.  When they have the freedom to do it their own way, they make it work or learn quickly from the mistake.  The current federal structure does not allow people in Quebec to organize their health system the way they would if they were autonomous or sovereign.

My feeling is public healthcare is a complex issue and there will always be serious issues no what the political structures. Saying that seperation would magically fix the 'problem' is a cop-out and a way to avoid making any serious decisions now. Separation would cost hundreds of billions if not a trillion dollars over a decade or more. How much healthcare would that pay for?

An off-topic aside.  I suspect "French-immersion" in English-Canada has become synonym for "private school".  Parents put their kids in immersion because they believe the teachers are younger and the bureaucracy is less sclerotic.  French is not the motivator - snob appeal is.

It is still about learning a language. People would not send their kids to learn French if they did not believe that French was a useful thing to learn.

Something all people in English Canada must understand is that the federal Liberals no longer represent Quebec.  People like Lucienne Robillard, Pierre Pettigrew and Stephane Dion do not speak for the Quebec I know.

They do not represent political beliefs of some portion of the Quebec population - just like the BQ does not represent the views of at least 40% of population. It is not reasonable to say they do not represent at least some of Quebec. If nationalist Quebequers stopped villifiying Quebequers who try to work within the system then you would likely see a wider range of of viewpoints within Quebec reflected at the federal level. In other words: if the representation of Quebequers at the federal level has problems there are many solutions that do not require seperation.

One of the biggest errors in political economy is to believe that there are economies of scale in public administration. All evidence points to the contrary - smaller units are more efficient.  But Hugo can make a good theoretical argument.  I don't know why the Ontario government caused amalgamation.  The Quebec government did it for political reasons - one island, one city.

Income/sales tax collection is a different issue than municipal government. I agree that not all government programs are best handled at higher levels of government, however, I argue that tax collection is one of those programs that does benefit from an economies of scale.

Whenever Quebec negotiates a deal to opt out of a federal program it negotiates compensation at that time. There is no need to formalize the right to opt out in the constitution.

No need to formalize? That was one of the Meech Lake five conditions. You make it sound as if Meech passed.

The recent healthcare deal is an example of Meech in action without Meech. There is no reason to believe that similar deals would not happen in the future (i.e. daycare).

Another huge blunder in English Canada.  The people who do not want to sign a new constitution are members of the federal Liberal party.  They are the ones benefitting from this extortion racket.

If really don't understand where you get this idea from. The only political parties that use the 'unsigned' constitution as a political tool are the BQ and PQ. If the federal Liberal party is unwilling to attempt to re-open the constitutional discussion then it is because they know that any effort would likely fail because the self-absorbed me-first culture that pervades our society (inside and outside Quebec) makes it impossible to put together complex compromises. The recent rejection of the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands demostrates that this malaise is not unique to Canada.

In all the machinations of this Parliament, Duceppe has been decent and the BQ has acted admirably.  In the candidate debates of the 2004 election, Duceppe was arguably the most eloquent and reasonable.

Only because he had nothing to gain - Duceppe does not care about getting votes from anyone who watched the English debate so it was easy to sit back and sound reasonable in comparison.

Quebec nationalists aways talk about wanting to collaborate with Canada after a yes vote while there are working hard to sabotague our national institutions today. This two faced attitude is destructive an will untimately poison any future negotiations.

[August1991]

Sparhawk, you make six points. I'll respond in order - but the last deserves most attention, and several quotes. Others are invited to disagree.

My feeling is public healthcare is a complex issue and there will always be serious issues no what the political structures.

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry, Quebec can probably manage better on its own.

People would not send their kids to learn French if they did not believe that French was a useful thing to learn.

Why do men get hair implants? Gimme a break. (In fact, I'd be more concerned that parents perceive immersion to be a truly better education.)

They do not represent political beliefs of some portion of the Quebec population - just like the BQ does not represent the views of at least 40% of population.

Do you know where Robillard was elected? (Westmount.) The federal Liberals choose a woman with a francophone name and run her in a rich Anglo Quebec riding. Dion is from a sort-of similar riding. Because of such Pepsi-Cola advertising, ROC (Ontario) thinks federal Liberals represent Quebec. ("But she has a French name!")

Income/sales tax collection is a different issue than municipal government.

You know something? I suspect tax collection is more efficient at the local level. Less avoidance and evasion. (The federal agency has the PR resources to claim it costs pennies to collect hundreds. Pure PR that ignores the true cost of taxation - avoidance and evasion.)

More pertinently, people in Quebec can better collect taxes from people in Quebec. (Think about it.)

The recent healthcare deal is an example of Meech in action without Meech. There is no reason to believe that similar deals would not happen in the future (i.e. daycare).

So, we have Meech Lake? Then what was all the fuss about? Trudeau (and federal Liberals) claimed Meech would be the "end of Canada".

Another huge blunder in English Canada.  The people who do not want to sign a new constitution are members of the federal Liberal party.  They are the ones benefitting from this extortion racket.

If really don't understand where you get this idea from. The only political parties that use the 'unsigned' constitution as a political tool are the BQ and PQ. If the federal Liberal party is unwilling to attempt to re-open the constitutional discussion then it is because they know that any effort would likely fail because the self-absorbed me-first culture that pervades our society (inside and outside Quebec) makes it impossible to put together complex compromises. The recent rejection of the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands demostrates that this malaise is not unique to Canada.

Sparhawk, I am astonished by your response here and so I quote you at length - and with several quotes. At issue are the relations among Canadians.

In my experience, the most ferocious federalists are French-speaking Quebecers in Ottawa. Why? They have the most to lose from a different Canada. They threaten English Canadians with separatism but in fact they don't want a solution - either way. If Quebec signed on to an agreement, the federalist crew in Ottawa would be just another caucus. If Quebec chose autonomy, the federalist French crew would be exposed as the carpet-baggers they are.

So, they don't want a solution. The federal Liberals and their ilk in the civil service perpetuate a problem - quietly and unseen.

Duceppe does not care about getting votes from anyone who watched the English debate so it was easy to sit back and sound reasonable in comparison.

Imagine, a politician who can be honest.

Quebec nationalists aways talk about wanting to collaborate with Canada after a yes vote while there are working hard to sabotague our national institutions today. This two faced attitude is destructive an will untimately poison any future negotiations.

Sparhawk, I'll take your comment differently.

People in Quebec want to collaborate with other people in northern North America. They want to do this because the people in northern North America have a shared history.

Can we not get along?

[Riverwind]

My feeling is public healthcare is a complex issue and there will always be serious issues no what the political structures.

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry, Quebec can probably manage better on its own.

In abstract, any system managed by an indepedent Quebec will likely be no better and no worse than the system that we will end up after the reforms that will happen in the next 5 years. However, once you take into account the billions upon billions of dollars that would be wasted negotiating seperation you would likely find that the most cost effective way to reform to the system is to work within the existing structures. So having a better healthcare system is not a rational argument for seperation. In fact, it is rational argue against seperation.

Do you know where Robillard was elected?  (Westmount.)  The federal Liberals choose a woman with a francophone name and run her in a rich Anglo Quebec riding.  Dion is from a sort-of similar riding.

What about Pettigrew and Chretian? There were elected in franophone ridings. My point is that if you are not happy with the diversity of opinion from Quebec within the current federal gov't there are solutions other than seperation. The fact that most francophpone Quebequers vote for the BQ instead of supporting another federalist party and then blame the federal system for not representing their views is extremely hypocritical.

More pertinently, people in Quebec can better collect taxes from people in Quebec.  (Think about it.).

Following your logic then the City of Montreal would be able to more efficiently collect taxes from people in Montreal. As long as people are free to move anywhere in Canada and work the most efficient income tax system will be one that is Canada wide.

So, we have Meech Lake?  Then what was all the fuss about?  Trudeau (and federal Liberals) claimed Meech would be the "end of Canada".

Times change. There was a time when the Martin-Charest health care deal would have been impossible. The federation is flexible and adaptable, there is no need to break it up.

In my experience, the most ferocious federalists are French-speaking Quebecers in Ottawa. Why? They have the most to lose from a different Canada.

A francophone Quebequer who believes in the federation has the most to lose if Quebec seperates because the society that they grew up in would become another country. So it makes sense that they would fight the hardest against seperation. You are really letting you hatred of the federal Liberals colour your judgement of people who have honest and sincere convictions about the country.

They threaten English Canadians with separatism but in fact they don't want a solution - either way. If Quebec signed on to an agreement, the federalist crew in Ottawa would be just another caucus.  If Quebec chose autonomy, the federalist French crew would be exposed as the carpet-baggers they are.

August get real, there is no conspiracy among federalists to block a new constituational deal. The only reason there is no talk of a new deal at this time is because fedaralists realize that whatever deal they offered it would be another complex and messy set of compromises like Charlottetown that would likely attract enough criticism inside and outside Quebec that it could not get the 50% required in the referendums.

Duceppe does not care about getting votes from anyone who watched the English debate so it was easy to sit back and sound reasonable in comparison.

Imagine, a politician who can be honest.

I said nothing about him being honest - just that he could afford to sit back and not get emotionally in the debate since no votes were at stake for him.

People in Quebec want to collaborate with other people in northern North America.  They want to do this because the people in northern North America have a shared history.

If Quebequers cannot collaborate with Canada within the current federation they will not be able to collaborate in any other arrangement. This is my key point. Seperatists talk all about reconcilation and co-operation while they do their best to undermine the federation by refusing to reconcile or compromise (setting minimum terms for compromise that you know that they other side will refuse is the same as refusing to compromise).

Seperatists will find that their negative attitude toward the federation today will come back to haunt them during any post-yes vote negotiations.

If Quebequers really want to get along with English Canada then they should stand up for the federation and express a willingness to work with it instead of tearing it down at ever opportunity.